Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes speaks at an Oct. 26 forum hosted by The League of Women Voters of Anne Arundel County alongside Republican Mark Plaster. The two are running for Maryland's District 3 seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. (Phil Davis/Capital Gazette / Capital Gazette)

Rep. John Sarbanes and Republican Mark Plaster sparred over a variety of issues on Wednesday night at a Severna Park forum.

As the two vye for District 3's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, Sarbanes looked to focus on the experience he has serving five terms in Congress as a contrast to Plaster's "outside the Beltway" campaign.

Advertisement

Hosted by The League of Women Voters of Anne Arundel County, the two had a heated discussion over voter ID laws. A number of states across the country implemented new requirements requiring government identification at voting booths following the Supreme Court's striking down of the Voting Rights Act.

"You have to have an ID to adopt a dog. A fish license. You have to have a license to purchase nail polish at CVS," Plaster said. "I think that this is a very simple thing to do and to be honest with you … people feel that their vote doesn't count."

Plaster also criticized Maryland's current voting laws. The state requires that those who register in-person to provide a form of identification ranging from a Maryland driver's license to a utility bill, but does not require that identification when residents show up to vote.

Both Plaster and Green Party candidate Nnabu Eze face an uphill battle in defeating Sarbanes, as the Democrat has consistently won the district with large majorities since 2006. Eze did not attend Wednesday's forum.

When the two turned to redistricting, Plaster pressured Sarbanes to support a proposal by Republican Gov. Larry Hogan to create a nonpartisan commission to redraw the state's voting boundaries. District 3 spans across parts of Anne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery and Baltimore counties and is regularly cited as one of the nation's most gerrymandered, or manipulated.

"With all due respect, it was done so that the Democratic legislature could hand it over to a Democractic incumbent," Plaster said of District 3.

Sarbanes said he would continue to support a national solution to the problem, but doesn't believe the issue should be relayed back to the states.

"My concern is if some states go with this process and other states do not, it will only end up making the politics worse," Sarbanes said.

The two regularly revisited ground they've debated over on the campaign trail, as they sparred over campaign finance reform.

Advertisement

The two saw a significant divide on how they would address the issues surrounding Social Security. Some studies have projected the benefits fund could hit insolvency by 2034 if no significant changes are made.

Sarbanes said he does not necessarily see the trust fund as "in trouble." However, he suggested removing the cap on Social Security taxes, where all income earned above the first $118,500 worth of salary immune to paying into the fund.

"If you eliminated that, you could actually add about 20 years of solvency to the Social Security trust fund," Sarbanes said.

Plaster fired back that Sarbanes' suggestion "is another way to just simply add more tax" and that the trust fund has been "broken into by Congress" to spend on things unrelated to Social Security benefits.